Gap, Lyft, Microsoft, others: Let boys in girls' showers

Critic charges companies 'unconcerned about the dad who knows daughter has to change with a boy'

Members of the powerhouse legal team Alliance Defending Freedom are criticizing the assertion of dozens of American companies, including some of its largest, that boys who believe they are girls should be allowed in girls' restrooms and shower rooms during their high school years.

"Big business shouldn't be advocating for boys to share the girls' locker rooms and showers – and vice versa – in our public schools, and yet that's precisely what these 53 companies are doing," said Kerri Kupec, legal counsel with ADF.

Advertisement - story continues below

The companies submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of transgenderism in a case at the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday, Gloucester County School Board v. G.G.

The student, Gavin Grimm, a girl, is insisting on using boys' restrooms on the basis of her "gender identity."

"What they should be supporting is the bodily privacy and dignity of all students, instead of simply disregarding the rights and reasonable concerns of many students and parents," said Kupec.

Kupec noted the companies say in their brief that they "recognize that employees cannot work as effectively when they are worried about how their children are being treated at school."

Advertisement - story continues below

But the companies, Kupec said, are "completely unconcerned about the dad who knows his daughter has to change for gym with a boy in her locker room."

"Worse, the companies would characterize that dad as having a 'lack of any reasoned justification' for his concerns, as the brief puts it, or as having a lower 'level of enlightenment,' as some activists have revealingly stated. The first duty of school districts is to protect the bodily privacy rights of all of the students who attend their schools and to respect the rights of parents who understandably don’t want their children exposed in intimate changing areas."

The companies contended there is no "reasoned justification" to prevent Grimm using the restroom of her choice.

Advertisement - story continues below

"By discriminating against and harming amici's transgender employees, customers and their families, the policy, and similar policies and statutes that may arise if the policy is permitted to stand, threatens amici's diverse and inclusive workplaces and their bottom lines. In light of the lack of an reasoned justification for the policy, and because of the significant adverse effects on the transgender community and resultant harm to amici, amici respectfully urge the court to determine that transgender students are protected by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972."

Critics of that argument have pointed out it assumes that in 1972, when Congress adopted the law, members of the U.S. House and Senate intended to allow boys to use girls' restrooms.

In the Supreme Court case, which originated in Virginia, Grimm, a female who identifies as a male, is battling the Gloucester school board for requiring her to use the girls' facilities.

Last month, President Trump withdrew an executive order by former President Barack Obama requiring public schools to allow students to use facilities according to their "perceived gender."

Advertisement - story continues below

Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, which has fought some of the transgender bathroom cases, said the move was significant.

"Removing this lawless directive from the Obama administration will do a lot to get the federal government off the backs of these local schools," said Staver, who says the Obama order put girls in vulnerable situations with biological males.

He says the backlash by liberals and the media is unreasonable, as if "there is something horrible" that Trump did.

"Frankly, he's just following the law. The law does not include gender identity, or sexual orientation, or gender expression – or whatever you want to say – to the non-discrimination categories," said Staver.

Staver noted that Congress has rejected such efforts to amend Title IX to expand the application of non-discrimination policies. He further stated that the authors of Title IX and the 1964 Civil Rights Act had no intention of extending such protections.

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.